Hard to take seriously what is coming out of BMW M head Friedrich Nitschke's mouth regarding BMW's commitment to rear wheel drive. Autocar reports Nitchke made the following statement, “Our philosophy in regards to steering feel and precision is that rear-wheel drive is the best solution. xDrive brings an 80-90kg weight penalty and the M differential is the industry’s best rear-drive set-up.” No disagreement from BimmerBoost here.

It would be nice if Nitschke believed his own BS but does BimmerBoost need to remind him BMW does sell all wheel drive M "cars" today? Very, very heavy all wheel drive M cars? Need BimmerBoost remind him how absurdly fat the F10 M5 is without all wheel drive? Yes, there was a time when BMW believed rear wheel drive was the best setup and utilized it to keep weight down with perfect 50/50 balance but with the new models even in rear wheel drive form being heavier than some of the competition even with all wheel drive and the new M cars no longer holding true to the 50/50 weight balance philosophy why even hide behind the weight comment?

So how is it that Mercedes-Benz can give the consumer the option of rear wheel or all wheel drive while BMW hides behind weight gain in their cars that clearly are no longer lightest in their class while at the same time already selling all wheel drive M cars? Did someone at BMW forget they offer the M550d with xDrive all wheel drive? Why isn't that car rear wheel drive if the weight is such a big issue?

Ladies and gentlemen, there was a time where what the head of M is shoveling at us regarding driving pleasure and steering feel thanks to rear wheel drive was true. But with the criticism of the new F10 5-Series steering feel as is and the rising curb weights, this is nothing more than pandering to emotion in an effort to avoid responding to the competition. Good for you AMG, way to meet the challenge rather than run from it.

Easily modified to me means buying a Mustang GT500, going to Summit racing's website dropping $2500 on headers, exhaust, intake, pulley and tune and going to the drag strip and running high 10's......

Its basically the same with the AMG cars with the exception that it will be more like $25,000. But it can be done and there are a lot of tuners making big power on recent AMG's. That to me is easily modified, not cheaply modified mind you but easily. Conversely bmw doesnt have the big tuners going for 1, 000whp+ builds and apparently cracking their ecu's is next to impossible. To me difficult is like my 550i which ive had for 2+ years, have shipped out to a bunch of different places to be the first to get this or that done, and have plenty of money to throw at it and no one to take it cause there isnt $#@! out for them. Look at the N54 and how many years its been out and they can barely make 600whp reliably. In my case I'm bored with my car and was looking at a 2014 E63 only because I know within a few months of having it I can be making big numbers.

Good point....LOL but the Renntech tune costs more than all the other stuff for the Mustang

Silly to determine the best based on cost. Hell for what you paid for the BS CLK I could have bought a CTSV coupe and built it and run circles around you never mind what you've spent after purchase. Does that make it better? For these types of cars money is rarely and issue.

Sorry, should have been more clear here, although you bring up a great point that this doesn't seem as important to them anymore. I can't be sure - but I think that the latest M offerings aren't even close to 50/50 as they used to be.

What I meant - is that when engineers put so much effort into a chassis - and just simply throw AWD on it and call it day doesn't seem to make sense. I guess Porsche is doing it, and they seemed to have done a good job with the latest Porsche 991/911, but I think that the whole car should be built with this type of thing in mind. There is a huge difference between FWD, AWD and RWD - point is, something as "serious" as what I would call basically "a race car for the street" should have a bit more thought into it before adding axles, clutches, differentials, etc. just to make people happy in case it snows.

If they want to make an AWD supercar, great - but I am against the adding it as an option for safety as opposed to performance. None of the AWD systems from BMW actually increase performance in any way, contrary to Subaru, the GT-R, etc... I don't even know where I am going with this.

Oh, I would rather have them invest the effort in something serious as opposed to adding another option to make sales. That's what I am trying to say.

Sorry, should have been more clear here, although you bring up a great point that this doesn't seem as important to them anymore. I can't be sure - but I think that the latest M offerings aren't even close to 50/50 as they used to be.

They definitely are not and it's a shame considering the BS we are being fed especially right here.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

What I meant - is that when engineers put so much effort into a chassis - and just simply throw AWD on it and call it day doesn't seem to make sense.

Have they considering they are differing from their famed 50/50 balance more than they ever have?

Exactly... I think they used to tout the 50/50 balance - it was even in a commercial IIRC. Why these ideals don't matter today? Drives me nuts. You CAN feel the difference that a perfectly balanced car provides - that's what made these cars so damn special. Now they are powerful cars - that's about it.

I dont get the whole 50/50 thing on an M5 type car. Is anyone really tracking these cars? For the whole drag/roll racing weight % and even total weight isn't that big a deal. I can totally get the argument on an M3 but the 5 or E are luxury cruisers.

I dont get the whole 50/50 thing on an M5 type car. Is anyone really tracking these cars? For the whole drag/roll racing weight % and even total weight isn't that big a deal. I can totally get the argument on an M3 but the 5 or E are luxury cruisers.

It isn't about 50/50 on an M5 it is about all BMW's being 50/50. Ultimate Driving Machine remember?

It isn't about 50/50 on an M5 it is about all BMW's being 50/50. Ultimate Driving Machine remember?

And what made the M5 great was its balance.

Back when the M5 was the size of the current 3's maybe but with a car that has a longer wheelbase than a gtr or a vette its simply too large and heavy to be tossable. Ultimate driving machine yes and on the Nurburgring absolutely you would want a lightweight 50/50 car but the ultimate roll racer or the ultimate highway terror or standing mile car couldn't care less about balance. I'm just saying we are getting hung up on something that wouldn't make much difference on a car that is as big as an F10 and weighs 4500lbs. The evolution of the bmw product line has the M3 today being what the 5 was and a car like the 1M being what the 3 was.

Back when the M5 was the size of the current 3's maybe but with a car that has a longer wheelbase than a gtr or a vette its simply too large and heavy to be tossable. Ultimate driving machine yes and on the Nurburgring absolutely you would want a lightweight 50/50 car but the ultimate roll racer or the ultimate highway terror or standing mile car couldn't care less about balance. I'm just saying we are getting hung up on something that wouldn't make much difference on a car that is as big as an F10 and weighs 4500lbs. The evolution of the bmw product line has the M3 today being what the 5 was and a car like the 1M being what the 3 was.

The weight is a problem, a big problem.

M's were never about being highway terrors or straightline monsters hence looking at the weight distribution of all the past M5's.

M's were never about being highway terrors or straightline monsters hence looking at the weight distribution of all the past M5's.

And its because of that that they aren't "stepping up" to the challenge of awd like an AMG for example. For a road course car with moderate power it isn't needed and that is still what M thinks a car like an M5 is for but he's crazy man I bet not 5% of M5 owners will EVER take the car on a proper track. But I bet a large percentage will roll race and do highway pulls and modify them for crazy power where the awd would come in handy. Funny that people like JRCart want to kill bmw for lagging way behind in the "hp wars" but they are building them to a different purpose. I drove a C63 recently and while it's way faster than an M3 it doesn't drive near as well and I bet people who track cars often would likely prefer the M3.

And its because of that that they aren't "stepping up" to the challenge of awd like an AMG for example. For a road course car with moderate power it isn't needed and that is still what M thinks a car like an M5 is for but he's crazy man I bet not 5% of M5 owners will EVER take the car on a proper track. But I bet a large percentage will roll race and do highway pulls and modify them for crazy power where the awd would come in handy. Funny that people like JRCart want to kill bmw for lagging way behind in the "hp wars" but they are building them to a different purpose. I drove a C63 recently and while it's way faster than an M3 it doesn't drive near as well and I bet people who track cars often would likely prefer the M3.

An M5 doesn't need to be a lightweight roadcourse car to be fun. It needs to be balanced and not nose heavy.

The damn thing already weighs as much as a boat so you might as well give it all wheel drive if you want to compete at this point.

And the C63 feels faster than the M3, it isn't faster. The P31 is though.

Back when the M5 was the size of the current 3's maybe but with a car that has a longer wheelbase than a gtr or a vette its simply too large and heavy to be tossable. Ultimate driving machine yes and on the Nurburgring absolutely you would want a lightweight 50/50 car but the ultimate roll racer or the ultimate highway terror or standing mile car couldn't care less about balance. I'm just saying we are getting hung up on something that wouldn't make much difference on a car that is as big as an F10 and weighs 4500lbs. The evolution of the bmw product line has the M3 today being what the 5 was and a car like the 1M being what the 3 was.

Yeah, that's the problem in my opinion... Just because they are heavy, they should stop caring about everything/doing things right? As mentioned, every single car in their line-up had a proper 50/50 weight distribution - in other words, were all engineered around this one goal. Now, even some of their "M" series aren't hitting this balance.

I understand what you are saying about the usage of these cars, but that's not what the intention of an M car is (at least previously). What I mean by this - just because people in the US are not using them on the track doesn't mean that they should start to make nonsense. The whole point of these cars was to be a track monster - now they are "okay" at this, but are now instead being beat by the competition as opposed to beating the competition. It's a shame. I know the M5 is a larger car, but it used to be an EXTREMELY impressive 4 door sedan, it still is - but it just isn't the same anymore. It's more about straight line; even if you are not on a track, things like balance/rigidity/suspension/weight all matter. If you are doing triple digits, and need to make a quick lane change for example. If you are in the mountains on a trip as another example. I like a properly built car - and that's what made the M series special - they are able to do most everything really good, now the focus is elsewhere. I mean, the last M5 was damn good - it was the car chosen to be the ring taxi at the Nurburgring.

The only thing good about heavy cars is that they have more mechanical grip. Other than this, can't think of much.

The "standard" C63 is not faster than the M3 btw - the M3 is a half second faster to 100 MPH, after this the C63 will start walking it. You are probably feeling the torque.

As mentioned, every single car in their line-up had a proper 50/50 weight distribution - in other words, were all engineered around this one goal. Now, even some of their "M" series aren't hitting this balance.

EXACTLY. And when everything had the 50/50 distribution the Ultimate Driving Machine slogan applied to all cars in the lineup. Now it's marketing, not a philosophy.

I have driven many - they feel disconencted, and most of the time heavy.
/rant

But apparently again the Japanese win. I have owned and driven a lot of cars. The 2005 Mitsubishi Evo RS was so much better at turn in, steady state cornering, and even exiting than any other car I can think of. Even RWD cars. Dart in faster than an E36 M3? Of course. Hang in through the corner like a..pretty much anything on street tires? Yes. Exit with tail hanging like E46 if you like? Yes again. TTOD on a wet auto-x track with a stock car on showroom tires? Yeppers.

You guys gripe about cars being too heavy and too tight compared to Old BMWs. You complain about 4wd being a cause of this. But those things are not necessarily related. Back to back on racetracks you will have a much nicer time with an Evo 8 or 9 than ANY BMW that you can order at a dealer. Daily drive, not so much fun, but again that is the tradeoff that BMW is making. Don't blame AWD for what BMW is doing with their marketing, they could make a great sporty fast and quick AWD car but people would not pay much more than $40,000 for it. So that car is not in their marketing scheme, instead it is the "safety for housewives" AWD car.

But apparently again the Japanese win. I have owned and driven a lot of cars. The 2005 Mitsubishi Evo RS was so much better at turn in, steady state cornering, and even exiting than any other car I can think of. Even RWD cars. Dart in faster than an E36 M3? Of course. Hang in through the corner like a..pretty much anything on street tires? Yes. Exit with tail hanging like E46 if you like? Yes again. TTOD on a wet auto-x track with a stock car on showroom tires? Yeppers.

You guys gripe about cars being too heavy and too tight compared to Old BMWs. You complain about 4wd being a cause of this. But those things are not necessarily related. Back to back on racetracks you will have a much nicer time with an Evo 8 or 9 than ANY BMW that you can order at a dealer. Daily drive, not so much fun, but again that is the tradeoff that BMW is making. Don't blame AWD for what BMW is doing with their marketing, they could make a great sporty fast and quick AWD car but people would not pay much more than $40,000 for it. So that car is not in their marketing scheme, instead it is the "safety for housewives" AWD car.

My buddy has an EVO X, and I couldn't disagree more... I have driven the car many miles on mountain roads - and a lot of highway driving. It's not comparable to a proper real wheel drive car. Yes, it sticks to the road - but this is the exact car I am thinking of when I typed the above. I would be willing to bet that it could even put up better peak numbers than say an E46 M3. Did it handle better though? No - not even close in my opinion. Does it do a good job of sorting everything out when you throw it into a corner? Yes. Is that what I consider a sports car? Again, no.

The EVO is about 25-30 seconds slower around the Nurburgring than the E46 CSL M3. What makes the M3 special is it's handling at high speed, not low speed corners - where I will admit the EVO would win due to it's torque vectoring (aka driving for you) nonsense.

This is senseless, I just don't like the way AWD feels - not sure how to describe it better. It's like the whole debate on the GT-R, some people will never agree on the car, and I certainly understand why.